PART II

Definition of the

Residual Contamination Period
By NIOSH


Major Thorium Dose Error - 2

e Therefore, NIOSH also must bound
thorium-232, thorium-230 and thoron
exposures through most of the residual
period when thorium alloy HK31A and
HM721A continued the same as 1957-60 at
Dow, Conalco & Spectrulite Consortium

e Internal and ingestion path thorium should
be calculated for ALL casting, extrusion &
rolling throughout the residual time period



Residual Contamination Std. [2b]

NIOSH believes that contamination levels at designated facilities in excess of those indicated in
10C.F.R. pt. 835, Appendix D (Cocupational Radiation Pmtection, Surface Contamination
Values) indicate that there is “significant contamination” remaining in those facilities.

“NIOSH believes that contamination levels at designated facilities
in excess of those indicated in 10 C.F.R. pt. 835, Appendix D
(Occupational Radiation Protection, Surface Contamination
Values) indicate that there is “significant contamination”
remaining in those facilities.” - Page 4 of 9 main file, Dec 2006
NIOSH (rcontam1206.pdf): Report on Residual Radioactive
And Beryllium Contamination at Atomic Weapons Employer
Facilities and Beryllium Facilities. John Howard, Director


DOL Dow EEOICPA Stats - 6/22/08

Part B - NIOSH Actions
STATUS OF NIOSH REFERRALS

Cases Referred to NIOSH 149

Cases Returned from NIOSH
With Dose Reconstruction (DR)
Being Re-worked for Return to NIOSH*6
Withdrawn from NIOSH (no DR)*?

joo Ww

pA
_

Total

Cases Currently at NIOSH
Initial/ Original Referral to NIOSH 90
Reworks or Returns to NIOSH *6

oo Ic

Total 9


NIOSH’s responsibility

----- Original Message -----

From: Turcic, Peter - ESA <Turcic.Peter@dol.gov>

To: Stephan, Robert (Obama); Pat.Worthington@hq.doe.gov
<Pat.Worthington@hq.doe.gov>; danmckeel2@aol.com <danmckeel2@aol.com>
Ce: jkusmierczak@simmonscooper.com <jkusmierczak@simmonscooper.com>;
deb.detmers@mail.house.gov <deb.detmers@mail.house.gov>; lje1@cdc.gov
<lje1 @cdc.gov>

Sent: Tue Apr 15 11:59:42 2008

Subject: RE: Dow Covered Period for AEC thorium, reply

As for the period of residual contamination, DOL accepts that thorium
was in fact part of the AEC work and thus should be covered as part of
the residual contamination at the facility. As for the period of time
that residual - be it thorium or any other contamination - that is
totally in the preview of NIOSH.


Contact Petitioner

Daniel McKeel, MD
P.O. Box 15
i Van Buren, MO 63965

Phone: 573-323-8897



Petitioner Summary & Conclusions SEC-
00079 - [2a] Residual Contamination

e Primary decommissioning according to Pangea
resulted in only 99% cleanup by late October 2006

¢ When confronted with this accomplishment,
IEMA ordered Pangea to perform two added tasks
| for the soil and dross room that were not
completed until Nov. 9, 2007. We believe IEMA
considered significant (*) contamination had to be
removed in 2007. (* 10 C.F.R. pt. 835, Appendix D)

¢ TEMA was unwilling to certify 100% completion
and release the site for unrestricted use, the goal of
license termination, until 6/8/08 (this month)



Rocky Flats Th Shipments Ignored

¢ DOE has not addressed Dow worker sworn
affidavits and testimony that “truckloads” of
identical thorium alloys (HK31A, HM21A
verified by the FBI) to those DOE admits in
the 1/8/08 HSS letter to DOL were sent to
MCW and the AEC for nuclear weapons
use, were also shipped from the Madison
plant to Rocky Flats DOE site in Colorado


NIOSH 2nd Dow SEC Addendum

¢ On 6/3/08 NIOSH released its second SEC
Addendum, again authored solely by ORAU
and James Mahathy w/NIOSH peer review
— To my knowledge, Mr. Mahathy has never

visited the Madison plant in Illinois nor has he
interviewed any Dow workers or petitioners

— Almost all of the “Dow” monitoring data cited
was from other plants than the Dow Madison
SEC site. Petitioners question use of such data



Dow Petitioners Summary - 2

¢ DOE-HSS archives research and two FBI studies led to
Glenn Podonsky 1/8/08 letter to Peter Turcic, DEEOICP at
DOL Director, indicating that:

— (a) AEC used thorium alloy in nuclear weapons from
1956-1969 (exact details where, for what not given)

— (b) Dow thorium alloy plate was supplied to AEC
via Mallinckrodt Chemical Works Uranium Division
purchase orders in 1957-58 (Dow HQ produced the PO)

¢ That Dow IL thorium alloys were used in
nuclear weapons was accepted by NIOSH and

by DOL



Dow Petitioners Summary - 1

¢ NIOSH admitted to Board it could not reconstruct
internal thorium doses 1957-60 (5/4/07) during the

AEC uranium contract period; SEC recommended

¢ Petitioners claim to Board in May 2007 was some
Dow Madison thorium was AEC- related

e Board tasked SC&A to review NIOSH ER.
¢ SC&A held Dow Outreach meeting 6/20/07 in IL
e NIOSH issues first Addendum to ER 8/06/07



Petitioner Summary & Conclusions
SEC-00079 - [1] Dose Reconstruction

¢ NIOSH could not dose reconstruct thorium internal
doses in May 2007 and erred in stating they can
now accurately bound internal thorium doses at
Dow Madison in IL in the 6/3/08 second
Addendum report to the SEC-79 evaluation

¢ The Pot Room description is flawed and thorium
fires/explosions w/high intakes are not considered

e SC&A has not formally reviewed/concurred with
the first or second Addenda to the Dow Madison
ER. This should be done in fairness to the workers


Comments: DOE-HSS 1/8/08 Letter

¢ NIOSH and DOL accepted that some Dow
Madison thorium thorium was AEC-related.

¢ DOE states thorium alloys were used 1956-1969
in nuclear weapons work.

¢ NIOSH focused on only the two 1957-58 MCW
thorium alloy purchase orders, ignoring the fact
that other such POs may exist, the most claimant
favorable assumption. The fact that Dow HQ and
not DOE produced the key MCW-AEC thorium
alloy Purchase orders buttresses this possibility.



Petitioner Summary & Conclusions
SEC-00079 - [3] Residual Dates

e Petitioners therefore believe that the date
November 9, 2008, when cleanup tasks
were 100% completed, or June 8, 2008, the
site unrestricted use release date, are more
appropriate dates to end the Dow residual
contamination period for the mixed AEC
and commercial/military waste stream at
Dow, Conalco and Spectrulite Consortium.



Dragon, Karen E. (CDC/NIOSH/EID)

From: DanMcKeel2@aol.com

Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 9:40 PM

To: NIOSH Docket Office (CDC); Katz, Ted (CDC/NIOSH/OD); melius@nysliuna.org
Ce: danmckeel2@aol.com

Subject: Dow Docket 113 submission

Attachments: McKeel_DowSEC_6.25.08h.ppt.pdf

NIOSH DOCKET Officer
Ted Katz, ABRWH DFO
Dr. James Melius, ABRWH and SEC Issues work group chair

June 13, 2010

| am submitting to Dow Docket 113 my 6/4/08 SEC-00079 in-person presentation as an Acrobat readable PDF file
generated from Powerpoint. This is the procedure | understood would be honored at the CDC NIOSH Docket Office
during earlier correspondence with Ted Katz. There are other similar Powerpoint/pdf-converted files posted on the OCAS
website. One of them is a Larry Elliott Powerpoint from the era when he directed OCAS. | will appreciate knowing this file
has been received and will be posted to DOCKET 113.

| also request that Ted Katz distribute this file to all members of the SEC Issues work group that is currently deliberating
whether or not to recommend extending SEC-00079 to cover the residual contamination periods for AEC-MCW uranium
and thorium at the Dow Madison IL AWE site. My June 2008 presentation contained information that is still relevant to the
date of the end of the Dow residual period for thorium. The June 2008 SEC presentation also deals with the conditions
that existed with respect to the amount of the thorium source term at Dow that between January 1, 1961, through June
2008 when the Dow AEC/NRC thorium license was terminated by IEMA (IL Emergency Management Agency) Nuclear
Safety Division, acting as agent for the NRC.

Thank you,
-- Dan McKeel

Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD

Dow SEC-00079 co-petitioner

Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers (SINEW)
Phone: 573-323-8897

Fax: 573-323-0043

E-mail: danmckeel2@aol.com

US Mail: P.O. Box 15, Van Buren, MO 63965-0015


Is Dow ““Madison” Data Authentic?

e Silverstein 1957 questions and comments:

— Madison site workers don’t remember this man
who was supposed to be their Rad Safety chief

— Was air data actually measured in Madison, IL?

e Shrader 1959 thoron air data:
— Was all data from the Dow Madison IL site ?

— Data collected before 1959 can’t be
extrapolated to be truly representative of
operations over the Dow residual time span



Rebuttal to NIOSH SEC
Recommendation - 1

e Addendum 2 doesn’t state clearly how thorium
internal doses can be bounded; NUREG 1717 and

NUREG 1400 were not sufficient to bound
internal thorium in original ER or now (our view)

e Air and other monitoring data is largely not from
Dow Madison. NIOSH as no [zero] Dow film
badge or bioassay data. Other Dow facility
operations (Silverstein ‘57) are not proven to be
similar to Dow Madison thorium operations

¢ The Dow Meld (aka “pot”) room description in
Add-2 contains errors (ex. six rather than 10 pots)


Excerpts: DOE-HSS 1/8/08 Letter

During its operations, Mallinckrod: Chemical Works Uraniem Division

Sea a nana eer ee NU nenreney- Cov ogenaes, ond
production programs for the nuclear weapons complex. In addition, the Office of
Health and Safety, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security, has
confirmed that magnesium-thoriam alloys were csed directly in atomic weapons
from 1956-1969, which is consistent with the 1957 and 1959 dates of the purchase
anders,

conclude for the years 1957-1958 that Dow Chemucal Company in Madison,
Milinois, probably produced a eeaterial for use by the United States, that the
material exnitted radiation, and could have been used im the predweton of an
atomic weapon. Therefore, we comchade that Dow Chemical Company in
Madison, [tinea meets the definition of an AWE, as defined by 42 U.S.C. §
73841(4), based on thear work with magnesiam-thorium plates and sheets.



Dow Proposed Residual Periods

¢ DOE initial facility database: 1961-1998
¢ NIOSH Dec-06 report to Congress: 1961-1998

¢ SEC-79 evaluation report, Addendum 2: issued

6/3/08: residual period to be 1961 - Oct. 21, 2006
based on 3/3/08 Pangea e-mail.

¢ IEMA closeout report by Pangea dated Feb. 2008

¢ Consider: IEMA required added decommissioning
work in 2007 (ended Nov. 9). Site was released
for unrestricted use on June 8, 2008.



Few Dow Dose Reconstructions

¢ Total Dow DR to date: (DOL) 3 of 149 to
NIOSH; NIOSH states 111 for DR from DOL

¢ No partial DR associated w/Dow SEC-79
¢ (3 attempts to confirm above prior to mtg)

¢ Why such low performance? OCAS reports
remaining non-SEC claims are “pending” due
to “updating of methods” and DR will be done
“soon.” Why is updating necessary?



Rebuttal to NIOSH SEC
Recommendation - 2

¢ NIOSH has performed to date only 3 total dose
reconstructions (DR) of 149 cases assigned to it

¢ NIOSH hasn’t addressed high intakes from
numerous thorium fires and explosions with
smoke and fumes that caused plant shutdowns

¢ NIOSH Addendum 2 did not give concrete
examples how Dow thorium doses could be
bounded in Extrusions, Casting, Rolling Mill with
different exposures and operations than other sites

¢ Dow IL extrusion presses were not hooded and
some presses were unique (the “large press’’)



Rebuttal to NIOSH SEC
Recommendation - 4

¢ IEMA Feb. 2008 Closeout Report for
Spectrulite’s IL thorium license was not
cited in the 6/3/08 Addendum 2 by NIOSH
when this report is surely more definitive
than a Pangea e-mail memo a month later

e¢ In my CDC 08-00862 FOIA appeal filed
6/20/08 I point out that many 6/3 Appendix
2 responsive documents were withheld



Part 1

NIOSH’s ability to reconstruct
uranium and thorium internal and
external doses during the residual

radiation contamination period



Petitioner Remaining Issue: Extended
Class Coverage for SEC-00079

¢ OCAS/NIOSH and DOL: Number claims covered
w/different residual contaminant period end dates:
— 1961 through 1998 (original definition 5/4/07) when
current SEC approved by the Board
— 1961 through October 21, 2006 new date in NIOSH
Appendix 2 to SEC-00079 evaluation report

— Petitioner proposal: 1961 through Nov. 9, 2007 when
100% of license decomm. activities were completed

— Or: Petitioner proposal: 1961 through June 8, 2008
when IEMA released Madison site for unrestricted
use (source: Matt Cushman/Pangea 6/21/08)



Dow SEC-00079 extension

SINEW Co-Petitioner
Daniel W. McKeel, Jr., MD
ABRWH St. Louis, June 25, 2008

ORAU

HK31A
~1980

<=M¢g-Zr-Thorium alloy (ORAU)



Major Thorium Dose Error - 1

e Page 25 of the 6/3/08 Addendum reads:

— “Internal exposures to thorium during the
residual period resulted from corrosion of stored
material, re-suspension of dust, scrap handling,
scrap cutting, and loss of containment of
disposed materials.”

— Above ignores the Dow AEC/commercial
thorium streams were mixed and inseparable.
Thus, all thorium operations must be bounded->



Rebuttal to NIOSH SEC
Recommendation - 3

Transparency has been low, secrecy way too high

Example #1: CDC FOIA office has not supplied
documents to item 9 submitted to them 4/17/2007

Example #2: NIOSH refused to provide me or
Senator Obama’s staff with names of “State of
Ilinois” entity/ies addressed in a 2/4/08 inquiry
letter, FOIA process took 66 days to reach me

OCAS and/or CDC FOIA withheld 4/10/08 letter
to IEMA + all 62 Dow HQ docs put in SRDB on
Jan. 9, 2008, docs requested in my 5/16/08 FOIA